Better then the plastic tees imo

@@Endeavour02 rubbish

Hardly. Rob Andrew is un front of him and there are 2 other players covering acrosss including Guscott.

He did nothing much in this game. He was amazing when England played Aus in Sydney in July 1991.

What many people forget is that in the summer of 1991 England actually toured Australia and got resoundingly beaten 40-15 (a huge margin considering a try was only worth 4 points then). They had played their forward-oriented game plan and the Aussies matched them and also had electric backs. When the RWC final came round England were conscious that the Aussies had good enough forwards to match their set piece and general play, so the theory was to surprise them by giving the backs more ball and trying to reduce the forward threat as much as possible. Your point is still valid though in the sense that during the final the English forwards actually were dominating the Australians and the Aussie full back at the time Marty Roebuck was also struggling with the high ball. Had England reverted back to their normal game at halftime during this final we may have had a different story. That being said, the Australian 1991 team was a formidable one and had just beaten the NZ team a week before too...

@@mosesfakatou7943 interesting, I didn't know about that defeat. You've got a good memory! I suppose successful teams are able to adapt and change strategies/ game plan before it's to late. They were an experienced team so you'd think at half time they'd of discussed whats happening and adjusted

@@busybody3591 apparently players like Peter Winterbottom and Brian Moore were giving this feedback to Carling and co at half time but they decided the stick to the plan. Hindsight’s a wonderful thing but in the heat of a World Cup Final I can sympathise Carling’s decision to stick to the decision. The final score was only 12-6 too, so still a close game. Overall though the Wallabies were deserved winners, they were the best team in the world at the time even before the World Cup. Besides, England got their revenge over them in 1995, 2003, 2007 and 2019 respectively so I think it’s fair game haha

Campo goaded them into it - in the press the week before he said england were boring

the older generations are

@@MrSkeleton131 The youngers don't care?

@@NoName-hg6cc Rugby union has hardly any grass-root support for kids in Australia, it's always been an elitist private school sport to most people

South Africa should have been allowed to enter this one really. They had the underlying strength to be champions in the 1980s/early 1990s but whether they could have put out a match-hardened team that could have competed is another question.

Dreaming mate

@@robicenco1 Look at their results when they came back in 1992. They were well beaten by NZ, Aus and England.

Why weren’t the Boks there?

@@Endeavour02 did you forget about Apartheid

Australia was stronger like South Africa was in 1995, nothing would have changed. You'd have lost in 2011 with a decent referee though